mtempm

Despite academic/political/military/banking/corporate alignment against fundamental morals, "right" appears to be in agreement with nature/natural selection. The States had a more "right" society founded om constitutional and civil rights that was a big part of its climb from an English colony to the world power in less than 150 years after the constitution was written.

The reason people probably have strong convictions about right or wrong is most likely because of nature, not despite it. Groups that had this genetic trait built tribes, societies that had greater success in the long term.

In the short term, individuals, or even groups of individuals, can be successful by acting amorally, but this comes as a cost to their group's long term success--the cancer analogy.

Right now there is limited competition between groups in the world. Most of what we should be competing against is the coming extinction event when something else out there gets a whiff of all the artificial elctromagnetic radiation. Probably the reason we hear so little in the cosmos is because it is not a very competitive strategy.

That's really incredible.

It's sad to see educators like this get pushed out of their field. I had some incredible teachers as well, but also some awful ones. There needs to be greater competitive components added to the education system, such as statistically significant pupil success in education and career outcomes.

That's a very interesting comment to me because I may be perhaps the opposite. I got a slow and frustrating start learning application development--I wasnt getting it. I felt I was following instructions on how to write esoteric insutructions and not understanding how it worked. I found the book Code by Petzold and read it. Then I discussed some of this with other developers and realized they were even more clueless than I was.

It seems some people love theory/understanding while some love building something practical/useful.

What service was this?

Unfortunately, all of the people of this world are not always as virtuous and honest as I would hope, especially those people in positions of great power.

Why did we drop 26,000 bombs on Muslim countries last year? Why is Snowden in Russia? Why did no one go to jail when evidence leaked of CIA torture, except the whistle blower? Why do the people of this planet produce a surplus of food and watch as some starve? Why did evidence the Bush admin lied about Iraq WMDs go unpunished?

The point is the leaders that exist dont mind cheating, and they usually get away with it. The advantage is that if they decide to take it, they can easily do so (and in the meantime it's significant bargaining leverage).

Infrastructure is both less durable as well as less liquid. It also returns diminishingly as you engage projects on your opportunity cost frontier. Also likely to be less secure to military or political threats.

Remember in the 90s when reading your email was seen as a creepy deed done by greasy, social outcasts? Contrast that with our government, today, spending unholy amounts of money to do that while Americans go without clean water and healthcare.

I know far more people who believe Trump represented military aggression and big business while Hillary'just wanted to help people;' which is a very strange idea given that Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, and Saudi Arabia donated more money to her than any of them donated to anyone in history.

Meanwhile Obama prosecuted more whistle blowers than any candidate in history after campaigning to protect them. Then dropped 26,000 bombs on Muslims last year.

What about the evidence that came out that the Iraq War's WMDs were a fsbrication of the Bush admin's? Who has gone to jail over that? I personally know Americans murdered in this fabricated war for profit and oil. Even insiders like Greenspan wrote about how that Iraq War was for profit and oil.

The people who are represented are not the working class, productive and honest citizens. You are all too tied up in the Dems vs Repubs debate and other politics to notice this though.

Locker rooms and showers full of men who are both overweight and are trying to prove their manliness.

Undoubtedly a tragedy created by evil. I'm not so sure it is entirely different than anything else in the world, though. One example: Native American genocide by some estimates killed more people, though until 2017 the US Government still maintained a policy of refusing to acknowledge it even happened, even though they paid bounties per head killed. It appears this injustice of genocide denialism may even continue into the future.

You never played American Football, did you?

Basically, if you have a small penis and gain weight (especially for already heavyset guys) everything around it grows while it doesn't get any bigger. This is otherwise known in the west via the not-unheard-of insult to overweight men: "You can't even see your own penis " In other words, they might imagine it shrinking into their body when their body is really just growing around it.

>Hikikomori

I believe this is pretty much agoraphobia

What's wrong?

I'm sorry I did not explain the idea well enough for it to be understood.

I don't see it as productive to respond on the internet to the posturing and credentialing about who has seen more utility functions or taken more econ classes, as you wrote above.

I can assure you that Robert Pirsig garners utility at different costs and quantities in the scenario he described. That is all that a utility function is: a function of utility at varying quantities. This is an elementary topic and there's nothing more to be argued here. I'm sorry that explaining it again rubbed you the wrong way and encouraged you to write a condescending response towards me.

I studied German and Japanese and it was very interesting indeed. However, what I was responding to is the common misnomer that language studies create cognitive improvements as my high school advisor and the above poster alluded to. The scientific consensus at the moment is that so far it only appears to help in word search ability. There's no other established improvement.

>Having utility decrease from its maximum to zero, or negative, at the next value is odd to say the least

I didn't claim anything such as this and I'm having trouble understanding what you are responding to in my post.

A utility function is just a value of utility received at different quantities and costs. They are just basic models for helping to simplify our understanding the world. There's no need to begin comparing expertise with utility functions. The author is talking about the utility he receives at the margin of one additional widget in his decision making process, and what that this type of scenario (when a commonly cheap item can, in our decision making process, can have a high marginal utility--ie quantity is only 1 and 1 is necessary for a finished product) means to us in our human experience.

note this is not really a scientific fact, and an idea which has been recently challenged as scientifically unfounded.

It is about marginal utility. You and others here are constraining yourself to thinking about the concept by thinking about it only as a utility function for one type of product or service. After all, that is how it is taught. You can also think about the marginal utility of one glass of water, or one screw in a more complex utility function (as is always the case in life) than for just one widget, as you would say a factory manufacturing screws until cost > utility. After all, it's nothing more than the utility you gain, on the margin (holding all else constant), of that one additional screw or glass of water. In the author's example, he is discussing this exact phenomenon. The utility at the margin of that one additional screw.

It's amazing public schools are permitted to do this. There's nothing for the kid to grow from in a child sitting around doing nothing. Children grow from experiences and challenges. Minds forced into isolation with no stimulation are stunted, and there's scientific evidence to support that. Obviously one week is not going to make or break a person, but this school policy is exceptionally ignorant.

I read this in high school and years later in university learned economists named this concept 'marginal utility.'

It's an important concept to understand in many aspects of life. In social and economic policy, it's important to remember resources are allocated per marginal utility, not by what they're worth. I.E. water is worth more to me than music, but I spend more money on music than water, and the music industry makes more than public water utilities. Seems obvious when stated like that, but it's often forgotten I find.

Why do 3 letter agencies need special tools? Who will they be accountable to that these tools are being used ethically?

We already have a bunch of stories of crooked cops using databases to stalk love interests, etc. Then look at the Michael Hastings incident. Imagine how much abuse goes unreported.

Interesting. What would the benefit be of complicating something as simple as ventilation.

However, 400000 to 410000 is a very small percentage incresse

Good point.

Anyways, how would it work with the server receiving any data from the client just by viewing the link in your browser?

That is specifically a scientist that got heavily involved in the climate change movement. Not every scientist would agree with those methods.

I'm interested by your comment, but I can't figure out what you are intending to say. Why do you need to dilute CO2?

>eg viewing a malicous email with the IMG tag in a webmail client

The article mentions it would occur even without opening the email.

>if somebody sent you an email with that code (even if you never open the email) then you would be the unwitting owner of one share of Krispy Kreme Donuts

Pardon my ignorance, but how would this work?